According to relational egalitarians, equality is not primarily about the distribution of some good but about people relating to one another as equals. However, compared with other theorists in political philosophy – including other egalitarians – relational egalitarians have said relatively little on what role personal responsibility should play in their theories. For example, is equality compatible with responsibility? Should economic distributions be responsibility-sensitive? This article fills this gap. I develop a relational egalitarian framework for personal responsibility and show that relational equality commits us to responsibility. I develop two sets of arguments. First, I draw on relational theories of moral responsibility – particularly Strawsonian views – to show that valuable egalitarian relationships require responsibility. Second, I show why relational equality sometimes requires that economic distributions be sensitive to responsibility and choice. I also defend a seemingly paradoxical result: being committed to responsibility, relational egalitarianism not only justifies some distributive inequalities but some relational inequalities too. Overall, relational egalitarianism gives a nuanced and coherent answer as to why and how responsibility matters from within egalitarianism. That it does should be an important argument in its favour.

根据关系平等主义者的观点，平等主要不是关于某种善的分配，而是关于人与人之间的平等关系。然而，与政治哲学中的其他理论家——包括其他平等主义者相比，关系平等主义者对个人责任在他们的理论中应该扮演什么角色的说法相对较少。例如，平等与责任兼容吗？经济分配是否应该对责任敏感？本文填补了这一空白。我为个人责任开发了一个关系平等主义框架，并表明关系平等使我们承担责任。我提出了两组论点。首先，我利用道德责任的关系理论——尤其是斯特劳森的观点——来表明有价值的平等关系需要责任。第二，我展示了为什么关系平等有时要求经济分配对责任和选择敏感。我也为一个看似矛盾的结果辩护：致力于责任，关系平等主义不仅证明了一些分配不平等，而且还证明了一些关系不平等。总体而言，关系平等主义对责任在平等主义内部的重要性和重要性给出了细致入微和连贯的回答。它确实应该是支持它的一个重要论据。关系平等主义对责任在平等主义内部为何重要以及如何重要，给出了细致入微且连贯的答案。它确实应该是支持它的一个重要论据。关系平等主义对责任在平等主义内部为何重要以及如何重要，给出了细致入微且连贯的答案。它确实应该是支持它的一个重要论据。